I think it has been a long process for Michigan. I think there are a number of factors. The staff has to be good. Learning how to build and operate fiber is not easy. There is lots of local learning (people, procedures, etc) involved in building fiber. Then having a quality outreach staff that is trusted by the community is key. We have asked our community to trust us as we helped put consortiums and partnerships together. I guess it is that we in all aspects of life - get the right people together and turn them loose!

My experience with this subject is very limited. I was impressed by the amount of work that Mr Boersma was responsible for with the deployment of broadband throughout the state. I had not realized that MDIT was so involved with that task. Out of all of the items I heard at the meeting, that is what struck me the most.

In some respective, having a decentralized governmental approach in Michigan has been helpful, because it has forced the/each community to address broadband deployment. The communities have come together to work as a collaborative to get the ears of: federal government, state government, vendors, and public non-profit community agencies such as Merit Network. This is the approach that Alpena, Petoskey, Hillsdale, and Muskegon have done.

Another factor is that Michigan was one of the very first states to offer 'free' public Internet access to the community through Merit Network via the Ameritech Rebate Case. As part of this grant, Merit provided toll-free 800 service to K-12 schools, public libraries, and community colleges, and offering training statewide in conjunction with Ameritech. Along with the Library community, Merit provided free access to K-12, Libraries, and Community College user community.

Michigan is the state where the Internet was managed, i.e. the NSFNet backbone was managed by Merit, before the commercialization of the Internet in April 1995.

Michigan is the state where the birth of Internet2 and Internet2's corporate offices are located in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Because of the above factors, I believe that Michigan citizens understand the importance of networking and sharing of resources and information. These factors will continue to drive the importance of broadband.

"Further, please feel free to contact me at any time if you have any additional thoughts on broadband connectivity to public libraries."

Last Tuesday, 3/20/07, Merit was invited to meet with Capital Area District Library (CADL) to be part of a network planning discussion. Libraries today, need at minimum a T1, 1.5M bps, of connectivity in order to deliver and participate in the rich media and video conferencing capabilities for their community. CADL has a total of 13 locations in the Lansing, Michigan area. Out of their 13 locations they have two locations that are using about 500K of sustained bandwidth. If they are planning to broadcase events from one library location to the other locations they would need an additional 384K [minimum] for video conferencing.

And lastly, I would urge ALA and Gates Foundation to provide support to help libraries build tomorrow's network so that the infrastructure can support the Librarians and Technology Directors to think about the possibilities of using the network for learning in creative ways.

In Michigan, provisioning of a 768K telco circuit connection is the same cost as a T1 (1.5M bps)circuit. When Merit places an order for a fractional T1 service with the Telecommunications provider in Michigan they install a T1 circuit to the Library. However, it is the Internet Service Provider that will provision the through-put on the circuit to be 768K bps instead of a full T1 1.5M bps.

From the report Merit provided as part of the "Michigan Profile for ALA-OITP site visits" on page 10 the libraries listed on this page are attached at 1.5M bps or higher. Video conference services [384K for standard and 1M to 5M bps for High Definition] along with rich content media and sharing of resources alone can utilize a T1 [1.5M bps] very easily.

Lise Mitchell, Chippewa River District Library: E-rate is critical to connectivity. Have four phone companies. Pay twice for circuit when it is handed off between AT&T and Verizon. Often takes 6 months to get added bandwidth. When AT&T split a circuit and some is now provided by Verizon, our cost doubled.

James Seidl, Woodlands Library Cooperative: Have 36 libraries in the cooperative and all connect independently from each other. No cooperative WAN. Some use DSL, Cable, dedicated circuit. Speeds from 768K to 3MB. Costs are “All over the board.” Some have MERIT; one library connects via their MAN; one library (with its branches) needs to work with four different telcos.

Roger Mendel, Mideastern Michigan Library Cooperative: Decentralized connectivity, like Woodland. Some use their local telco. One library does wireless via Vonnage. Cooperative does some E-rate follow-up to ensure libraries complete their forms.

Suzanne Dees, Superiorland Library Cooperative: Have 63 libraries. It’s a 7 hour drive from one end of the cooperative’s service area to the other. Use interactive video for communication; cooperative with Regional Educational Media Center (REMC, their K-12 regional cooperative.) Have Sirsi/Dynix. Their libraries use five different ISPs. Twelve libraries on MERIT. Some have just 256K and three libraries are at 3MB. One library uses wireless provided by Charter, their local cable company. Also have a telemed network. Very dependent on E-rate. Libraries pay $5,370-$8650 annually for connectivity (pre-discount), excluding MERIT frame-relay circuit fee. $108,000 total annual cost. Bottom line: “Our connectivity allows us to do what we need to do vs. what we want to do.”

Andrea Michelini, The Library Network (TLN): Have 58 libraries in five counties in the SE part of state. TLN serves 30% of state’s population. Well connected: 42 libraries have T1, 3 have 3MB, 13 have fiber. Have been laying down fiber since May 2006 for head end and 13 sites. (Lease fiber, AT&T owns it.) This WAN is used for Net access and for shared ILS (Sirsi/Dynix) by 55 libraries. TLN is a member of MERIT and AT&T is underlying carrier. Most MERIT costs paid by individual libraries. All libraries have E-rate on the circuit but not Net access because most do not filter.

2a: All the “usual stuff” like email, surfing the Web, etc. Seeing more access to videos, gaming, and electronic books (e.g., OverDrive). Libraries must address the changing nature of the Internet, and respond as needed to changing patron demands on what they access. Some cooperatives host their member libraries’ Websites.

2b: Almost all facets of library work, including backend processes like book ordering, are dependent on the Internet. “Our staff try and get their work done by 3pm because after that response time drops to zero.”

Network technician was certain a hacker was causing our bandwidth problems. Turns out it was just “normal” library traffic.

2c: Jim: Have ILS (Autographics) outsourced in California. When patron’s download videos, ILS response time suffers and sometimes fails (i.e., times out). New Gates PCs have fostered amazing use but there is no bandwidth. About three cooperatives have shared ILS. Where there is a shared ILS, there is more help on technical issues from the cooperative. Cooperatives send tech help if they run a shared ILS. Central ordering of parts, etc. Keep all hardware (e.g., routers) homogeneous.

3. What would you like to do with your Internet Connection that you cannot do with your current environment?

• VPN; remote network and router diagnostics and PC management (push out service pack upgrades, etc.); staff email; MySpace; gaming; wireless access for patrons; distance education (interactive video); VoIP
• Our server was hacked and used to house Japanese pornography. Staff not versed on security issues. Small libraries do not have trained staff. Cannot expect the library director to do this!

4. Is your bandwidth sufficient? If no, what problems does the insufficient bandwidth cause for your staff and patrons?

• Some services can only be used at home because of library bandwidth issues. This is very frustrating.
• Use packet shaping tools (e.g., Packeter) and caching to address bandwidth issues.
• Let the ISP address bandwidth. They deal with the phone company to get us more bandwidth.
• Phone companies do not care or are unresponsive to our needs.
• Slow access makes patrons stay at the PC longer increasing lines and frustration from patrons waiting for access. Some patrons complain that other patrons are just using the Internet for frivolous reasons, like gaming.
• Can have best bandwidth in the world, but the wiring in your building has to be good all the way down to the PC. Infrastructure in old buildings – cat 5 – is now old and the $$$ to change wiring, switches, routers all need to be replaced.

5. What would you consider sufficient bandwidth? How did you arrive at that amount?

• Insufficient bandwidth is determined by the number of irritated patrons
• Any more than a 10 second wait is too long
• The definition of sufficient bandwidth: “When you click, it happens.”
• There are so many factors in this puzzle: ILS, LAN, patron use, problems “down the line, etc.
• Filtering can add to overhead.
• Just general patron and staff frustration

6. If you had more bandwidth, what would you use if for? What is your vision for your library’s connectivity?

• Adequate fiber throughout the state
• Patrons being allowed to do what they want to do
• Patrons coming in or using from home and being happy with what they get (and telling legislators!)
• UP – five ISPs – main are Merit and Charter. They won’t talk to each other! The library is trying to get them to work together so the data does not have to go to the Chicago NAP and back. (At Friday mtg, MERIT said they are working on this.) Competition is not necessarily good for cooperation.

7) What are barriers is getting more bandwidth?

• State failed to take a statewide role in this. In mid-90s governor did not view a state network as a function of government.
• State economy is in bad shape, libraries facing major budget reductions. Libraries have lost millages and had to close branches, etc. State wants to cut state aid to public libraries (and cooperatives) by 50%. People have lost jobs and are looking to move out of state. Need infrastructure for high tech jobs. Manufacturing is gone. Michigan Works! Offices are sending folks to libraries but not paying anything to support this. Libraries are very willing to collaborate, but others do not seem to reciprocate
• Libraries at the mercy of the local phone companies
• E-rate does not allow us to pull our own fiber. Must lease this, which is not a good long-term situation.
• Michigan – grass roots state – local control – would not have wanted a statewide network in years past. Slow to get the schools to understand how the Internet would be a good thing. Separate cultures not used to cooperating. Privitization may not be working.

8. E-rate: What role does e-rate play in high speed access for public libraries?
8a) Who applies for the E-rate funds?
8b) How does CIPA impact?

• Only 7 of our 34 libraries file (for POTs). Too much paper work and follow-up work for smaller libraries
• Getting $300-400 is not worth the effort
• Some don’t want to filter
• Cost as most important factor works against MERIT as ISP and some libraries have had to select different ISP
• Always having open 2-3 years worth of applications and forms. This is very confusing
• Have to lease fiber, but sometimes its better to own it
• Phone companies not cooperative
• Library pays $1,000 to a third party to file E-rate paperwork
• ISPs not required to offer E-rate discounts, and some don’t
• The accumulation of paperwork and length of time from paperwork to discounts is troubling

9. Who at the regional or state level provides you assistance in analyzing your needs and getting you more bandwidth?

• MERIT does a good job on bandwidth usage
• Most ISPs fairly good at tracking bandwidth usage
• No real state-level help
• Library cooperatives with WANs offer some level of help to their member libraries

10. If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were to offer assistance in getting more of US public libraries with higher bandwidth, what would be most helpful?

• Develop or provide bandwidth tools, circuit testing, etc.;
• Develop standards and benchmarks on connectivity
• Funds for planning statewide cooperation
• Model after a state that is doing it well. Parties involved – not used to working together. Maybe we need to do just libraries. County commissioners not re-elected go away, new ones don’t have the same priorities. Term limits cause the legislature to turn over and there is a constant re-training effort (sigh). Schools march to a different drummer.
• Funds to provide shared, sustained technical expertise. Someone who can come to our library to help. Cannot expect library director in a small library to have this level of technical expertise. Need more than WebJunction
• Address huge difference in knowledge between sizes of libraries
• Address issue of libraries needing to deal with telco providers

Libraries in Michigan are not centralized – some have strong regional cooperatives (13 of them), some have no cooperative or partnership at all. Some libraries run by the county, some city, some local community.

Tried to establish a statewide library network several years ago – never happened; instead focused on e-rate.

7 of the library coops are members of MERIT, the university-state-run backbone network. Each coop makes its own telecom plans.

The Library Network (TLN – Eastern Michigan) and Lakeland are largest library coops – often aggregate demand. TLN serves 58 libraries, 30% of state, were able to pool money to pay AT&T to build fiber

The Upper Peninsula (UP) is surprisingly well-connected, largely due to the organizational efforts of Suzanne Dees.

Michigan Library Consortium (MLC) formed 30 years ago to create content for Michigan libraries, such as on-line catalogue system (OCLC), MelCAT

Michigan’s strategy was to focus on buying content and then hope the connectivity would follow. However, they now would like to buy databases with videos but does not think there is enough connectivity

Former Governor reluctant to build statewide library network, concerned about competing with private sector – preferred to give incentives to carriers to build the network, resulted in patchwork of regional networks.

Many pockets of Michigan have no BB – outside of Ann Arbor, Big Rapids

Greatest Barriers to BB?:
1. technical expertise in libraries is lacking, this need is sometimes filled by the regional coops
2. financial – no funds to expand bb capacity, e-rate has helped, but more is needed

Focus Group
The UP depends on one pipe into and out of the region – carries all banking, telephone calls, as well as libraries’ traffic. Some traffic has to be routed out of Michigan through Chicago.

Libraries BB was adequate until video – class lectures, videoconferencing, distance learning – exhausted all capacity quickly. Staff can only do Internet work until 2 p.m. until students arrive. NYPublic Library has wonderful historical videos.

Rural libraries don’t have the staff or technical options to put in their own VPNs or packet shaping technologies or security. Regional Library consortiums at least put in technicians and can provide remote management to help libraries.

Is there a problem with the middle mile, or only the last mile? Regional consortiums often use the ISP to negotiate middle mile solutions with carriers. ISP can negotiate better because they aggregate demand and can talk technical needs with carriers

In rural areas, there may not be any middle mile and no ISP – may only have a direct local connection from library to backbone. Very expensive because of the distance. Postalized rates help, but may not be available depending on contract with local carrier.

Many libraries have been holding back on wireless because bringing more laptops into the libraries creates even more congestion on the network. Traveling salesmen often use libraries.

Georgia has “evergreen Automation – cheap ILS system (?)

Libraries really need a “Geek Squad” to help them put together and manage BB network. Libraries could really use a technology advocate, someone who knows how to work with the technical people at the carriers to make sure the needs are met.

Gates did it right with computers – sent a technician along with the computers to help install and set it up.

Gates funded NPower – did not take off. Circuit Rider would be a better middle step (this is not the ultimate solution, but it would help)

NOTE: Texas set aside $80,000 (?) of LSTA money to create a technical assistance staff to work with the libraries.

Michigan E-Library (MeL): Susan Davidsen, MeL Coordinator

This is a wonderful content portal for Michigan students and patrons. Has links to several on-line databases for free. Has excellent video lectures on health and wellness, legal information (court decisions), tutoring and educational videos. Many other databases and information. Very well-organized and useful. But this means even more demand and more BB is necessary to make use of it. Would like to subscribe to more video and audio services, but without sufficient broadband, the investment in subscriptions would be underutilized

Anyone with a valid Michigan driver’s license is eligible to sign on. Library can sign on automatically (no password) with a static IP address.

Lunch with Dave Vehslage – Verizon:

Verizon serves many rural areas of Michigan – left over from GTE acquisition. Michigan passed a deregulation bill in 2005 and a video franchise bill in 2006. Verizon is not seeking legislation in 2007 – nothing particular on its agenda. Verizon prefers that state government not seek to promote greater broadband initiatives. The market is working and will meet the demand if it is there. Many areas have BB available but do not know it or are not using it.

The Michigan Broadband Development authority has been a failure. It has authorized loans for BB where BB is already available, instead of focusing on unserved areas. It has written off $14 million of the $50 million loan it received from the Housing Dept. (from hiring staff and consultants and other overhead). BB Dev’t Authority has not been re-authorized and will go out of business this summer.

Verizon is not a part of the telephone association in Michigan. Disagreement over universal service is one reason.

3/15/07 Meeting w/ Lynne Draschil

Lynne works for the Department of Information Technology (DIT) within the state. She is responsible for external relations with counties and munincipalities, application development.

Michigan is successful for connecting because the state is proactive in working with providers and working to increase coverage, libraries are successful because of collaboration with state libraries

DIT works with local government and universities to move the Governor’s agenda forward on BB (and health care and other technology-based issues)

Focus on wireless – works with cities to implement municipal wi-fi networks, also looking at using MDOT (Dept. of Transportation) towers for BB and cellular antennas. Is conducting a survey of communities to determine underserved areas, and working with Development Authority.

PUC – not much cost-based regulation left after legislation 2 years ago removed much of its ratemaking authority or oversight because of competition; retains oversight of interconnection issues (CLEC-ILEC) and customer disclosure;

PUC has been looking at helping 2 new BB over power line (BPL) applicants seeking RUS funding. NARUC BPL task force issued study on the issue.

PUC also notes that ALLBAND, a rural ILEC, is deploying fiber to the Home with RUS funding.

Video franchise act passed last year with many of the same provisions as in California. AT&T has been delayed in getting of the mark with video deployment in the state.

Cofiann Hawthorne – advisor to governor, liaison between Governor and state agencies

Main focus is on bridging the digital gap, especially in 8 cities with highest poverty rates, also focused on workforce development and opening libraries to help citizens have BB access and apply for jobs.

[following comments are made by different participants at the meeting]:

Demand may not always be there to support BB investment. Many consumers feel that gas for their snowblowers is more important than BB connections.

Oakland County – one of 3d richest in the country – does not have BB in some places, is putting in its own wireless BB network.

Gov. also announced BB goal of 2007 (same as Pres. Bush)

BB Dev. Authority has used all its money, AT&T/Verizon not as interested in the program

Metro Act in 2002 helped to streamline process for using rights-of-way; created standard rate for compensating cities.

In general, policy has shifted away from promoting competition to promoting BB build-out in unserved areas.

Michigan is setting up “local collaboration groups” (?) to work with communities to get feet on the ground

Anybody in Michigan can receive BB from satellite – a little more expensive, but it is available.

MIDEAL – state contracts for services from carriers, muni governments can purchase access to state services through the LinkMichigan contract. State network is with AT&T, cities can choose to use state network or use it as leverage to negotiate a better rate from carriers.

Biggest Barriers to BB deployment?:
1. education – many consumers don’t understand the need for BB or the value of it, or don’t know that it is available.
2. money

more and more carriers are choosing wireless as the least costly BB technology.

Leadership comes from the Governor, who sets the agenda aligns the agencies priorities with hers. The governor has several agendas “Cities of Promise”-getting industrial cities onto the new economy.

Libraries fit into many of these agendas

In one city of promise, they are trying to re-open a closed library

Realizes they are a place to provide education

Michigan success factors include for broadband includes the hands-off approach the government has taken, bundling helping to lower prices (cost effective to add on broadband) and the evolution of technology to lower the cost
Views barriers as customers not knowing what can be done w/ broadband, so not much demand out there. The other major barrier to broadband is money

Thinks they have been successful at broadband deployment, but difficult to gauge success. They think the government does a good job of promoting broadband through the broadband development authority (and the tax credit to telcos in exchange for them not shutting down the BDA)

B&M Gates Interventions

Get as big of a pipe as possible

Show the value of libraries

get people in to use the pipe

Upgrades in computers and hardware

Education of librarians and patrons in broadband

Increase space in libraries for computers

Challenges to more deployment includes multiple service providers, low ROI in some areas

Thinks Gates foundation could encourage the service providers could deploy; thinks there is a way to incentivize the deployment (not sure what form this incentive would come in), and help with up-front costs

Chris Horak – Michigan Cable & Telecom Assn.

Cable is deploying BB to 91% of homes at 5 – 10 Mbps speeds
58% of homes can get telephone service over their cable systems.

Sometimes cable companies provide free cable drops or cable modem drops into schools or libraries. Cable is likely to continue these connections voluntarily once the new video franchise law takes effect – good advertising.

The old days of asking for free service from the cable companies as a condition of franchise agreements have ended. Now policy-makers need to be more creative.

Most of the time, cities’ entry into the telecom business is unwise. Cities forget the annual costs of running and maintaining a network, have limited expertise when the system goes down. The private carriers are much better at this.

The BB Dev’t authority fell flat, lost $14.5 M, will lose $1 million more, in staff expenses. Also, the need was not there. Most loans were given in Lansing, Grand Rapids, other areas where 2 or 3 BB providers already existed. The market is working.

Metro Act has worked (standardized rights-of-way). Each city was charging different amounts for rights-of-way usage.

Cable is not pursuing any legislative agenda right now.

Believes best way is to bring all providers in together to work out solutions, perhaps using successful library consortiums to explain to rural libraries how to aggregate traffic.

AT&T is steadily increasing its BB deployment because of these measures.

Some cities are building their own networks, competing with AT&T.

State government should take a “stakeholder” approach – don’t tell the industry what to do, need to engage industry in a dialogue

The BB Dev’t Authority created a huge scandal, a good example of what NOT to do.

Telecom Association would be happy to engage in more dialogue with the libraries, suggested participating at each other’s conferences.

Key Recommendations:
1. promote greater conversation, can help libraries identify their needs and help industry meet those needs
2. libraries should have a technology plan, AT&T is not willing to throw money at a problem until the library has a plan to use it.
3. provide an unbiased consultant to help libraries understand its needs.

Elaine is the chair of the Library of Michigan Board of Trustees. By default she has had the longest running trustee. She is a special library background. Works for Phizer for 15 years, UM Dearborn and GM Lawyers.

Thinks that this type of research is critical for the

The disperate ways that libraries are funded make it less efficient and effective for them to get good connectivity

Are trustees knowledgeable?

Intellectually they know of the connectivity study, but there is not guarantee that they fully understand the problem

Not at the forefront of the legislature advocates minds

Works through the Governor and the Director of the HAL agency

Go to public hearings

Background on the board of trustees

We try and mix the board to have representation from all sorts of libraries (public, academic, special and school), legislator members and geographic represenations

State library focuses on public libraries and school (but academics and special still wants to partner)

Advisory board to state librarian and the director of HAL (state librarian). Does not supervise activities. Helps do reviews and select candidates.

Advise and investigate issues that are critical to the state libraries

But do not get into day to day management

Make proclamations and publish position statements, etc.

Appointed by governor

Does not have a mix of rural libraries, etc.

Primarily discusses libraries issues in general

How successful are the libraries are deployment?

Spotty and room for improvement (did not examine b4 call and asked us about focus group

How does the board assist?

Advises state lib on administering Gates and LSTA Grant

Provided resources once they get connected

Focus on getting content; not equipment and connections

How much priority do you place on broadband? Do you have a policy statement? Philosophy?

This would be possible, but given latest round of budget craziness (libraries recently experienced a 50% reduction

Gov. Granholm has a priority to build an educated workforce.

Connectivity to public libraries could be a part of Granholm’s plan

Do legislatures on library board have library background?

Most recent appointees are best that we have as far as getting them to be an advocate

In the past they have helped advocate and sponsor some activities

B&M Gates Interventions

Should be some great collaborative environment for public libraries where they can plug in at a low rate